Pilsen Neighbors Community Council v. Burris
| Citation | 672 F. Supp. 295 |
| Decision Date | 09 October 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 80C5501.,80C5501. |
| Parties | PILSEN NEIGHBORS COMMUNITY COUNCIL, and National Consumers Foundation, Plaintiffs, v. Roland W. BURRIS, Comptroller of the State of Illinois, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Harvey Grossman, Roger Baldwin, Foundation of American Civil Liberties Union, Michael P. Seng, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
William E. Dicks, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for defendants.
Michael W. Coffield, Charlene L. Holtz, Andrew F. Sears, Coffield Ungaretti Harris & Slavin, Chicago, Ill., amici curiae for the United Way.
Plaintiffs filed this suit in October 1980 challenging the constitutionality of Illinois' Wage Deductions for United Fund Act (the Act), Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 127, ¶¶ 371, 372. That statute, as it was enacted in 1961, authorized the Comptroller for the State of Illinois (defendant) to establish procedures by which state employees could contribute money directly from their paychecks to charitable agencies under the "umbrella" of the United Way.1 Plaintiffs, as charitable organizations, sought to solicit funds in 1980 from state employees pursuant to the Act's provisions, but were denied that right because they were not members of the United Way and because the United Way/Crusade of Mercy (UW/CM) had already solicited funds for the City of Chicago under the Act's provisions.2 In their initial complaint plaintiffs alleged that the Act's designation of the United Way as the exclusive conduit for state employees' solicited funds violated their rights to free speech and equal protection under the law.
Following this court's denial in January 1983 of defendant's motion to dismiss, the Illinois state legislature enacted the Voluntary Payroll Deductions Act of 1983, Ill. Rev.Stat. ch. 15, ¶¶ 501-505, which repealed the Wage Deductions for United Fund Act and implemented new provisions for the solicitation of state employees. While retaining the language of the old Act in allowing the United Way to continue raising funds through state campaigns, the new Act creates alternative provisions for other "qualified organizations" to participate concurrently with the United Way. Organizations seeking qualification under the Act are required to jump through certain procedural hoops, as established by ¶ 503(b). The United Way, however, qualifies under ¶ 503(c) (United Fund) of the Act, and it does not have to follow the Act's ¶ 503(b) procedural requirements. Plaintiffs challenge the requirement that organizations seeking status as "qualified organizations" pursuant to ¶ 503(b), (1) submit written designation forms indicating that 4,000 or more state employees intend to authorize that organization for withholding; (2) maintain a minimum of 1,500 contributions3 each year through payroll deduction or get dropped from the designation forms; and (3) disclose to employees the percentage of receipts collected from them that is expended for fundraising and overhead.
Plaintiffs maintain that the Act, even with its new provisions, violates the Constitution. They assert three basic theories: (1) that the Act is an unconstitutionally vague delegation of authority to the Comptroller's office, without specific standards for determining which organizations qualify under ¶ 503(b) and which do not; (2) that the Act unreasonably restricts plaintiffs' First Amendment rights; and (3) that the Act impermissibly favors the United Way over other charitable organizations, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
The new Act is not the only significant event since this suit was first filed. The legal arguments have been shaped and changed by the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 105 S.Ct. 3439, 87 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985). Plaintiffs have now moved for summary judgment. Because of that context the issues here, strictly speaking, involve plaintiff's right to relief despite Cornelius, not what may have been foreclosed by that decision. We conclude that plaintiffs are not entitled to summary judgment, and their motion is denied.
Plaintiffs Pilsen Neighbors Community Council (Pilsen N.C.C.) and the National Consumer Foundation (N.C.F.) are tax-exempt not-for-profit corporations in compliance with the Illinois Solicitation of Funds for Charitable Purposes Act. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 23, ¶¶ 5101-5205. Pilsen N.C.C. acts as a neighborhood association for Chicago's largest Mexican-American community. It organizes and prepares members for leadership roles in the educational, social and economic affairs of Pilsen, coordinates the administration of certain social services and educational institutions, works to improve the basic skills of Pilsen residents and helps develop long term economic and social strategy for Pilsen's development.
N.C.F. provides funds, research and education to consumer and citizen organizations. One such organization is the Illinois Public Action Council, which is a federation of over 75 affiliates, including homeowners' associations, church, tenant and community groups, taxpayers' organizations, labor unions, and health and energy coalitions. Metro Seniors in Action, a federation of 23 senior citizen organizations in the City of Chicago, is also supported by N.C.F.
Under the Act the Comptroller has primary responsibility for establishing and regulating the state employee payroll deduction system, and pursuant to this responsibility has promulgated regulations implementing ¶ 503(b). Ill.Reg., Title 80, § 2500.10-2500.70 (1985).
UW/CM and the United Way of Sangamon County are here as amici curiae. The United Way acts as an umbrella organization, conducting fundraising activities for a variety of charitable entities. It organizes in individual Illinois communities under a variety of names, including United Funds, Community Chests or Funds, United Drives, and Combined Appeals. United Way organizations and other groups which the United Way of Sangamon County believes qualify as United Funds, are listed in the Directory of United Ways and/or Chests (Directory) which is printed by the United Way of Sangamon County. The United Way of Sangamon County suggests that the Comptroller authorizes the deductions and thereby determines who is listed in the Directory (presumably by conforming his authorization to the Directory listings). It does, however, concede that the Comptroller has not directed it to add or delete any charitable entities from the Directory.4
Numerous charitable entities are listed as member agencies in the United Way and are required by that membership to follow certain United Way rules. These member agencies are not permitted to individually solicit funds from employee groups on an organized basis where the United Way conducts employee campaigns. United Way member agencies may not solicit funds or engage in promotional activities of any kind from any source between September 15 and November 1 of each year, which is when the United Way conducts its annual fundraising drive. The United Way also requires that its members are not "agencies whose primary function is cultural, legislative, public relations, formal education, or the conduct of religious activities" (plaintiffs' mem. p. 11).
Illinois payroll deduction programs allow state employees to authorize deductions to consolidated drives in support of charitable organizations. Employees may contribute to a United Fund for a particular community in Illinois or to any "qualified organization," but employees do not contribute directly to the specific member agencies within the United Way. Once employees select the community United Way or organization to which they wish to contribute, it is that organization which decides how to distribute the funds. By permitting consolidated drives and restricting individual drives the Act, it is urged, fulfills its purpose of allowing deductions in an administratively convenient manner, with minimal state involvement.
The solicitation of employees in the state workplace is carried out primarily by state employee volunteers, with limited involvement by organizational representatives. The extent of state official involvement in the United Way campaign is contested by the parties.5 Defendant contends that the Comptroller's office has no significant involvement with the coordination efforts of the state steering committee (SC) for the campaign, beyond discussions of the technical and mechanical aspects of processing payroll deductions.
The record shows, uncontested at least as to the time before the new Act was passed, that some state officials helped design UW/CM campaign literature, brochures and graphics; prepared progress reports for the Governor, the Chicago metropolitan chairman and the UW/CM government division director; prepared and distributed statistical information to state employees regarding the value of their contributions; and provided orientation and information sessions in over 300 locations of the 87 participating state agencies. In addition, the steering committee requests of each state agency that a "high level management official" be specified as the person within that particular agency responsible for making the campaign a successful one.6
A Department of Transportation employee and member of the SC visits larger agencies to orient their coordinators, and employees of each agency receive literature and brochures concerning United Way and its members' activities. Weekly progress reports are requested by the SC from participating agencies. If a particular agency is having problems soliciting funds a good fundraiser may be sent to that agency for special aid, such as the showing of movies. Occasionally the United Way has entered the state workplace for a conference with the SC and to assist in training sessions.
Plaintiffs further allege that the state permits...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pilsen Neighbors Community Council v. Netsch
...and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. In October 1987, Judge Moran denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. 672 F.Supp. 295. The case was later transferred to Judge Leinenweber, who granted defendant's motion for summary judgment in January 1991. Plaintiffs appeal. A. ......
-
New West v. City of Joliet
...or controversy." See Warm v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975); Barland, 2011 WL 6225138, at *6; see also Pilsen Neighbors Cmty. Council v. Burris, 672 F. Supp. 295, 307 (N.D. Ill. 1987) ("The constitutional and prudential standing doctrines restrict judicial power to 'cases' and 'controvers......
-
New West v. City of Joliet
...controversy." See Warth v. Seldin. 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975); Barland. 2011 WL 6225138, at *6; see also Pilsen Neighbors Cnty. Council v. Burris. 672 F. Supp. 295, 307 (N.D. Ill. 1987) ("The constitutional and prudential standing doctrines restrict judicial power to 'cases' and 'controversie......